It seems to me that to sue a seller for false advertising, you would need to prove they are lying. Which would be a combination of proving that what they say is untrue, and that they know it is untrue.
The manufacturer, on the other hand, doesn't have to prove what they are saying.
Also, I believe most statisticians would say that it is the statistical method, not the software that implements it, that matters. Also, that the statistical method should depend on known facts about data, such as statistical distributions of data and noise.
But many scientific publications require or expect papers to use statistical techniques based on fairly specific statistical assumptions, that are often incorrect.
Because of these kinds of statistical issues, I suspect that a moderately large fraction of scientific publications come to incorrect conclusions.
"Evidence based science" comes up especially often in medicine. But medicine is another field where relatively few of the common statistical assumptions I mentioned are actually valid, because bodies are extremely complex incompletely understood systems, and many variables are strongly interdependent. On top of that, companies that develop medical studies routinely sponsor many small studies, then select those whose results are allowed publication. The net result is that the "evidence base science" may very often be incorrect.
In any event, conclusions for ice skating equipment may also be biased by sponsorship and free equipment given to some of the best athletes and coaches. So correlation studies between performance and models will be strongly biased. And "double blind" tests are impractical in sports like skating where you sometimes need to look down at the equipment while practicing.
So "evidence based science" on sports equipment is nearly impossible. It is fairly safe to make almost any claims one wishes, knowing suits regarding such claims are unlikely to succeed.
It’s true that measuring subtle performance improvements in complex athletic activities can be challenging, but that doesn’t mean evidence-based science is “nearly impossible” or that false advertising goes unpunished.
First, many jurisdictions have clear consumer protection and truth-in-advertising laws. In the U.S., for example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can—and does—require manufacturers to substantiate their claims. If a company asserts that a blade design increases jump height, it may be compelled to present supporting evidence. In the EU, consumer protections are also robust, and companies can face serious legal consequences if they cannot back up their claims. It’s simply not true that manufacturers can say whatever they like without repercussions. The standard isn’t always about proving deliberate deception; it can also be about whether a claim is misleading or unsubstantiated. If the claim can’t be supported, that alone can constitute a violation.
Second, while it’s correct that statistics can be misused and research can be biased, well-designed sports science studies do exist. Researchers regularly use controlled conditions, motion capture, force plates, and repeated trials to measure subtle performance differences. Sports science has produced credible research on various equipment-related factors: footwear impacts on running economy, aerodynamic benefits in cycling, and the effects of figure skating boots on landing mechanics. For example, aerodynamic helmets have been shown to reduce drag, and high-tech swimsuits once improved swimming times so effectively that they were eventually banned by sports federations. Difficulty does not equal impossibility.
There have also been notable legal victories over false advertising in sports and fitness products. The Vibram FiveFingers case is a prime example: Vibram claimed its minimalist shoes would strengthen feet and reduce injuries without adequate evidence. The company was sued and reached a $3.75 million settlement, reimbursing consumers. Such cases show that consumers can and do successfully challenge unsupported claims.
If manufacturers were indeed free to make claims without evidence and faced no legal consequences, the marketplace would be flooded with outrageous assertions. For figure skating blades, companies could claim their products add multiple inches to jump height, drastically reduce injury risk, or even guarantee medals—without providing any data. This would harm consumers, who’d pay a premium for empty promises, undermine trust, stifle genuine innovation, and make it harder for athletes to make informed choices.
The existence of legal frameworks, regulatory agencies, and the ability to bring evidence-based challenges to such claims ensures that consumers are not at the mercy of marketing hype. In short, while it’s not always easy to prove or disprove subtle performance benefits, the law does provide consumers with rights and avenues for recourse. Evidence-based testing is difficult but not impossible, and companies aren’t automatically free from consequences if they make unsubstantiated claims.
